My Photo

« Who Put Monica Goodling in Charge? And Why? | Main | The Audacity of Openness »

July 28, 2008


"[Today's Dowd op-ed is]"

Is it too much trouble to ask you to link to it?

Ok, it's here.

Perhaps you could explain what specifically you dislike about the column?

"[Today's Dowd op-ed is] a classic example of her worst impulse to think that she’s speaking for the common man by assuming that the common man is 100% douchebag."

Which sentences? How, exactly, do you believe Dowd is expressing this?

gary - it's meant as a more general description of dowd's MO. today's op-ed isnt all that relevant. I just didn't want to chop that last sentence off halfway through.

sorry if i was unclear

Y'know, I had no idea what Marcotte was talking about until I read the Dowd column. She left out most of the good homoerotic quotes. As a dog-whistle, this is an ambulence siren.

I'm not entirely sure MoDo means to sneer at Teh Gay, tho. Seems more to generally sneer at enthusiasm, period. So unseemly and irrational, y'know. I do think it's a hostile column, but not aimed at the common man. If anything, the message is to the intelligentsia: this man is sexy, he likes expensive cars, he works out, he's a sucker for pretty blondes --> he is Not One Of Us.

he's a sucker for pretty blondes --> he is Not One Of Us.

Uh, I know PLENTY of inteligentsia who are suckers for pretty blondes. And blonds.

I really dislike Maureen Dowd. I think of her as at best entertainment and at worst a waste of everyone's time. And here's the thing: politics *shouldn't* be entertainment.

Has anyone noticed just how snarky the MSM has been about this trip? And I won't even mention the redstaters, whose commentary has just been pathetic.

If Obama gets treated like a rock star in Europe, people seem resentful, if not envious. If the trip had flopped, columnists would have wallowed in that with glee.

If things continue to go this smoothly, I worry that Schadenfreude might take over, and people will vote against Obama just to see him lose.

I would like to say that I have no idea what either Dowd or Marcotte is talking about.

I also share Ara's opinion of Dowd.

To answer Gary's question, what I dislike about Dowd's column is that it is valueless. It contains no information, no insight, no humor, and is, to quote Bull Durham, "self-indulgent, overrated crap."

Your random ranting at Dowd is even more information free than her column. Pot meet kettle.

rant? what is that post, 4 sentences?

publius is pithy, which brings a whole separate set of problems. but no one with a fair mind would say she rants.

look, someone has to tell the NYTimes that Dowd is ineffective and yet not worth the time to give a substantive critique.

and here publius strikes the right balance.

Your random ranting at Dowd is even more information free than her column.

THank you, Ms. Dowd.

If you don't get what Publius & Amanda are saying, it may be because you don't read enough Dowd. Her columns during the Democratic primary, for instance, largely consisted of "Guess what I just thought of? Hillary is so butch that she makes Obama look even faggier than he already is!"

In fact, any given column contains three elements, in various combinations:

1) "Playing with gender stereotypes", by which she means consistently calling Dem politicians gay regardless of gender.

2) A healthy dose of self-congratulation for being such a witty, connected urbanite.

3) A bit of Friedman-esque empathy for the common man, usually revealed in the assumption that America hates gay people.

Maureen Dowd reminds me of the popular girls in my 1950's junior high school: not particularly bright or amusing, but chosen by some unseen hand to be the arbiters of who/what was "in" and who/what was "out". I don't read Dowd very often, because she brings back too many memories of how irrationally I longed to fit in with these airheads when I was 11 years old. No wonder the U.S. elects turkeys like GWB if Dowd's dyspeptic musings pass for "political commentary".

Robert M.,

Thanks for the explanation. It's true I seldom read Dowd, especially since her nastiness about Gore. When I do I am generally puzzled by what she is after.

Your explanation makes me think my description of this column - "It contains no information, no insight, no humor, and is, to quote Bull Durham, 'self-indulgent, overrated crap,' " describes many others as well.

Shouldn't this post be titled, "My MoDo Problem....and Yours"?

The comments to this entry are closed.